Proposal to make colleges obliged to provide consent classes

KikiLaRue

Marginvar wrote: »

Perhaps we should also teach men not to allow women to bully them using sex as a means of control, this is widespread in my opinion. This is why most women are the chief decision makers with money in households.

What an interesting point, brand new poster who has just arrived and is only posting on this thread. Illuminating.

xckjoo

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I'm not the slightest bit embarrassed man. You are trying to claim women are as rapey as men and that is a ridiculous proposition. You are now trying to weasel out of it by claiming 'rapey doesn't mean rape' and insulting me to boot.

You're contributing nothing of value to the thread, and I'm quite certain I'm not the one who should be embarrassed here.

Nope. No, no no non non non no.


Not once did I say "women are as rapey as men". Not a single time. Nor was it my intention. What I said was (quoted from the original text)

I've met my fair share of rapey women over the years.

So now. Can you explain how that can be interpreted as "women are as rapey as men" by anyone not hell bent on trying to assign intent that clearly isn't there?



And even if you've never heard the word "rapey" before, adding "y" as a suffix to a word is commonly used in English to make an adjective out of a noun and indicate the adjective has characteristics of said noun. Unless English isn't your first language, you must have encountered this regularly during life. Please stop trying to suggest intentions in my words that clearly aren't there. I've clearly stated several times now what the intention was. If you are unsure of anything else please ask

Triceratops Ballet

xckjoo wrote: »

Commonly used word. I would assume most people would have heard and used it in their lives. But If you're unsure of the meaning of something, then look it up or ask. Google throws up a slew of definitions in line with my usage. No shame in not knowing, but it's pretty embarrassing to assume the wrong conclusion and then argue it.

if someone accused you of being rapey, you wouldn't take it that there was some implicit intention to label you as being like a rapist? would you be happy that there's a big enough distinction between the descriptors rapey and rapist in colloquial sense that you wouldn't have as much of an issue being called the first as you would the 2nd? (when neither may be true)

There's nothing wrong with teaching young people of both genders about consent. Nothing at all. Everyone who says the predators won't pay attention are right, but it might be useful for some. My parents were pretty good at giving me the talk, but a lot of parents don't or won't 'cos it's too awkward (you know what's more awkward? your kid being accused of something because you didn't properly prepare them for the real world or getting knocked up!). The kids who already know will just get a helpful reminder, the kids who don't might have their eyes opened, and the sociopaths won't pay attention.
I'd see it as being more useful to reducing the (for want of better expression) middle of the road rape/ sexual assault cases, the ones where one person thought it was ok, and the other didn't and neither were able to communicate that adequately. There will always be predators, that's true and they won't change and they don't care about consent but there are people it could be useful for.

I agree college is way to late and that this convo should be starting pre puberty (at age appropriate levels) and parents shouldn't be able to opt their kids out.

Omackeral

KikiLaRue wrote: »

#NotAllMen

Happy?

Why are you being so narky towards a very reasonable question? It's needless. Could you not just say ''some men'' instead of men? It's a legitimate question. It's that type of casual all-inclusive language that fuels the whole debate into a gender war. Some people read it and think ''oh great, another men bashing thread''. You lose the attention of some folks who might have been on the cusp of grasping what you had to say.

KikiLaRue

xckjoo wrote: »

Nope. No, no no non non non no.


Not once did I say "women are as rapey as men". Not a single time. Nor was it my intention. What I said was (quoted from the original text)
So now. Can you explain how that can be interpreted as "women are as rapey as men" by anyone not hell bent on trying to assign intent that clearly isn't there?



And even if you've never heard the word "rapey" before, adding "y" as a suffix to a word is commonly used in English to make an adjective out of a noun and indicate the adjective has characteristics of said noun. Unless English isn't your first language, you must have encountered this regularly during life. Please stop trying to suggest intentions in my words that clearly aren't there. I've clearly stated several times now what the intention was. If you are unsure of anything else please ask

Post #72 on this thread, you said

xckjoo wrote: »

Women need to learn it too. I've met my fair share of rapey women over the years. Just because they can't physically force someone to do something doesn't make them less rapey.

Now as per your suggestion I did indeed Google rapey and here's the top result.

(comparative more rapey, superlative most rapey) (informal) Inclined to commit rape (sexual assault). (informal) Featuring or characterized by rape. a rapey novel. (informal) Suggestive of rape

Obviously it's beyond you to admit you misspoke, but that's okay, I'm going to move on from this part of the conversation now because it's becoming boring and repetitive and I only want to engage with people who are actually interested in the discussion at hand.

Bye Felicia.

tritium

Boggles wrote: »

Well you are the one calling for a 3 year trial. Surely that has to be based on more than "I don't know".



Yes, irrefutable.

But back on topic.

Is there evidence that suggests that misunderstanding consent is a reason for sexual assault and do these consent classes lead to a decrease in assault?

I am if yes, absolutely no problem with them, if "I don't know" or no, then why are they trying to wastes people time, invest the money elsewhere that will make a difference.

At the end of the day Rapists are gonna rape, it's a crime prevention and prosecution issue.

On the bolded bit, oh absolutely yes. Given that the pillar of many defence cases in rape trials is that the accused had reasonable belief that consent existed, and the standard reason for bringing the charge is a belief by the accuser that it did not, it’s pretty clear that misunderstanding of consent is an issue.

Given how many rape cases don’t result in convictions I’d say that teaching how to clearly communicate to both genders is pretty important.

suicide_circus

i'm with camille paglia on this one.

the people proposing this stuff are cut from the same cloth as the puritanical pearl clutchers of old.

KikiLaRue

Omackeral wrote: »

Why are you being so narky towards a very reasonable question? It's needless. Could you not just say ''some men'' instead of men? It's a legitimate question. It's that type of casual all-inclusive language that fuels the whole debate into a gender war. Some people read it and think ''oh great, another men bashing thread''. You lose the attention of some folks who might have been on the cusp of grasping what you had to say.

Because I have already pointed out several times in this thread including my first points that this is a small minority of men we're talking about.

And you've picked up on the one instance where I didn't write "some" and making the conversation about that. And it's annoying. Because you're implying something about my point of view that isn't true.

Omackeral

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I only want to engage with people who are actually interested in the discussion at hand.

Bye Felicia.

Do you though?

KikiLaRue wrote: »

What an interesting point, brand new poster who has just arrived and is only posting on this thread. Illuminating.

You didn't even respond to this person except to denigrate them. Everybody has to have a first post or two.

Floppybits

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

if someone accused you of being rapey, you wouldn't take it that there was some implicit intention to label you as being like a rapist? would you be happy that there's a big enough distinction between the descriptors rapey and rapist in colloquial sense that you wouldn't have as much of an issue being called the first as you would the 2nd? (when neither may be true)

There's nothing wrong with teaching young people of both genders about consent. Nothing at all. Everyone who says the predators won't pay attention are right, but it might be useful for some. My parents were pretty good at giving me the talk, but a lot of parents don't or won't 'cos it's too awkward (you know what's more awkward? your kid being accused of something because you didn't properly prepare them for the real world or getting knocked up!). The kids who already know will just get a helpful reminder, the kids who don't might have their eyes opened, and the sociopaths won't pay attention.
I'd see it as being more useful to reducing the (for want of better expression) middle of the road rape/ sexual assault cases, the ones where one person thought it was ok, and the other didn't and neither were able to communicate that adequately. There will always be predators, that's true and they won't change and they don't care about consent but there are people it could be useful for.

I agree college is way to late and that this convo should be starting pre puberty (at age appropriate levels) and parents shouldn't be able to opt their kids out.

I don't see any problems with consent classes and I agree college is too late to do this. It should be included as part of the sex ed curriculum and should be for both sexes when they are either making the transition from Primary school to secondary school or at the start of secondary school.

And they should get rid of that practice of separating the boys and girls during sex ed. I remember in secondary school, think it was second year and we were doing sex ed and the separated the boys and girls. I remember all the lads laughing as we were told to put our questions on a piece of paper and then they were given up the person doing the class and they read out the question and then said what it was. All I remember is the lads taking the mickey.

KikiLaRue

Omackeral wrote: »

Do you though?

Yes, as you can see myself and Boggles disagree on this and we're having a conversation.

Omackeral wrote: »

You didn't even respond to this person except to denigrate them. Everybody has to have a first post or two.

When someone sets up a new account just to post on a thread like this, my inclination is not to engage with them as they are often trolls.

freshpopcorn

I'm open to consent class but I think they should be offered in secondary school.
They should also be be carried out correctly. It's important that people know exactly what the law is regarding consent. There's no point of teaching people there variation of what consent is. (They shouldn't be carried out by a very lefty or righty person).
Laws may also need to be updated regarded consent.

Calhoun

Omackeral wrote: »

Do you though?



You didn't even respond to this person except to denigrate them. Everybody has to have a first post or two.

Ironic considering they are a March 19 account lol.

KikiLaRue

Calhoun wrote: »

Ironic considering they are a March 19 account lol.

Feel free to speak to me rather than about me.

Yes, this is a new account, and when I set it up I made a point to re-introduce myself to AH by posting in the chatty 'interview the person below you' type threads so people would know I wasn't a re-reg troll.

Triceratops Ballet

Floppybits wrote: »

I don't see any problems with consent classes and I agree college is too late to do this. It should be included as part of the sex ed curriculum and should be for both sexes when they are either making the transition from Primary school to secondary school or at the start of secondary school.

I'd say even earlier, back in my day (:rolleyes:) we had the stay safe program from probably snr infants or 1st class to teach us about what to do if an adult said or did something that made you feel uncomfortable, when you think about it that's kind of an intro to the idea of consent, being able to identify something that makes you uncomfortable. In addition a lot of girls will be getting their periods before they even finish primary education so will need to have talks around that at probably 10 or 11, it would be really easy to just work in a module on "yes feelings" and "no feelings" it doesn't have to be labelled as consent, just how to communicate effectively around sex

xckjoo

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

if someone accused you of being rapey, you wouldn't take it that there was some implicit intention to label you as being like a rapist? would you be happy that there's a big enough distinction between the descriptors rapey and rapist in colloquial sense that you wouldn't have as much of an issue being called the first as you would the 2nd? (when neither may be true)

Honestly? Wouldn't be happy with either because neither are good . But if someone described me as rapey I'd think "sh1te I better change my behaviour because I'm coming across as someone that's capable of rape". Whereas if I was described as a rapist then I'd say "f you. I've never raped anyone in my life". Even being described as a potential or future rapist would seem much stronger than being described as rapey. The former being (in my mind) someone that will rape given the right circumstances, while the latter being someone that might; or at least someone that would happily straddle that border of intent and cross that line whenever it suited their desires.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with teaching young people of both genders about consent. Nothing at all. Everyone who says the predators won't pay attention are right, but it might be useful for some. My parents were pretty good at giving me the talk, but a lot of parents don't or won't 'cos it's too awkward (you know what's more awkward? your kid being accused of something because you didn't properly prepare them for the real world or getting knocked up!). The kids who already know will just get a helpful reminder, the kids who don't might have their eyes opened, and the sociopaths won't pay attention.
I'd see it as being more useful to reducing the (for want of better expression) middle of the road rape/ sexual assault cases, the ones where one person thought it was ok, and the other didn't and neither were able to communicate that adequately. There will always be predators, that's true and they won't change and they don't care about consent but there are people it could be useful for.

I agree college is way to late and that this convo should be starting pre puberty (at age appropriate levels) and parents shouldn't be able to opt their kids out.

I think we're pretty much aligned on all your points. It might not stop the x% looking for a victim, but it would hopefully reduce the cases of miscommunication or ignorance to near zero. Communication is such an important part of society, it should be taught from day 1.

Calhoun

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I'm open to consent class but I think they should be offered in secondary school.
They should also be be carried out correctly. It's important that people know exactly what the law is regarding consent. There's no point of teaching people there variation of what consent is. (They shouldn't be carried out by a very lefty or righty person).
Laws may also need to be updated regarded consent.

I am not against them either as long as they are done in the right way at the right time.

They below post is why i am so against when its mentioned by the likes of Blackwell or other in her echo chamber. I am not against consent classes but i am against them being used to have ago at a certain sex.

People may say well how can it be abused? The institutional abuse in the UK by the CPS who has targeted men even though they have had evidence that they are innocent should scare the crap out of most people.

You'll find out that the likes of Blackwells definition of consent is going to be far more prescriptive than the average laymans and the classes will be coming with a whole heap of other baggage that will then be enforceable via a kangaroo court


They can f*k off with themselves

tritium

Marginvar wrote: »

I think people who rape in most cases know perfectly well what they are doing is wrong, when caught they claim ignorance as a means of defense. So I'd be skeptical jist how effective consent lessons would be in reducing cases of rape.

Even that’s not straightforward though:

In most cases....

Is that most cases that are actually rape? Legally rape? Accusation of rape? Which figure are you basing “most cases” on?

I’m sure many rapists do indeed claim ignorance, however the level of acquittals in rape cases that actually go to full trial would seem to indicate that it’s far from open and shut.

Ignorance btw is a particularly bad word here. Ignorance isn’t a defence, and if your defence is based on “I didn’t know if they consented” it’s pretty certain you’ll be looking at a conviction.

tritium

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Actually the defendant very often claims they didn't know the alleged victim didn't consent. A cultural change to enthusiastic, affirmative consent would cut out a lot of the "well I thought she was up for it because...."

No, that’s not a defence to a rape accusation. It’s necessary to believe consent is present. If you “didn’t know if they consented” then you’re guilty of rape.

Floppybits

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I'd say even earlier, back in my day (:rolleyes:) we had the stay safe program from probably snr infants or 1st class to teach us about what to do if an adult said or did something that made you feel uncomfortable, when you think about it that's kind of an intro to the idea of consent, being able to identify something that makes you uncomfortable. In addition a lot of girls will be getting their periods before they even finish primary education so will need to have talks around that at probably 10 or 11, it would be really easy to just work in a module on "yes feelings" and "no feelings" it doesn't have to be labelled as consent, just how to communicate effectively around sex

I don't remember a stay safe program, I do remember being warned by my parents about stranger danger and stuff like that.

As for when to do it, me personally I think 10 or 11 is too young, even for girls who are getting periods. For me I wasn't interested really in girls until I was 12 or so, I remember clearly it was around the time I made my confirmation, before that no interest at all. That's why I was saying that age where they are finishing primary school and starting secondary school and the hormones are running wild in both sexes.

KikiLaRue

tritium wrote: »

No, that’s not a defence to a rape accusation. It’s necessary to believe consent is present. If you “didn’t know if they consented” then you’re guilty of rape.

Yes, and many times the defence in a rape case is a "reasonable belief" that the alleged victim consented. So we need to be sure young people know what constitutes a reasonable belief. Young people need to know exactly what consent is. Young people need to know how to express what they want and what they don't want, how to communicate assertively.

That's all these classes are aimed at. But college is too late - way too late.

Mitch Connor

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Yes, and many times the defence in a rape case is a "reasonable belief" that the alleged victim consented. So we need to be sure young people know what constitutes a reasonable belief. Young people need to know exactly what consent is. Young people need to know how to express what they want and what they don't want, how to communicate assertively.

That's all these classes are aimed at. But college is too late - way too late.

But if you tried to do it in Secondary School sure you'd be accused of introducing the idea of sex to kids, and sure thats a parents job and sure thats not the place of a school....

College may well be too late, but better late than never. And its a decent starting point for a discussion and normalisation of such class - to then be possibly brought back towards secondary school

Floppybits

xckjoo wrote: »

Honestly? Wouldn't be happy with either because neither are good . But if someone described me as rapey I'd think "sh1te I better change my behaviour because I'm coming across as someone that's capable of rape". Whereas if I was described as a rapist then I'd say "f you. I've never raped anyone in my life". Even being described as a potential or future rapist would seem much stronger than being described as rapey. The former being (in my mind) someone that will rape given the right circumstances, while the latter being someone that might; or at least someone that would happily straddle that border of intent and cross that line whenever it suited their desires.

Have to agree with you, I wouldn't like to be called 'rapey', I would take it as that I am coming on a bit too strong and need to change the way I behave. I take being called a rapist is as bad as being called a Peado.

xckjoo

I hate to attack the poster and not the post, but I feel like I need to defend what I wrote here. Apologies in advance to the mods

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Post #72 on this thread, you said

Literally the same part I quoted and asked for clarification on how you interpreted it. Which you ignored and just reposted the same thing like it makes your point.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Now as per your suggestion I did indeed Google rapey and here's the top result.

Did you actually read what you posted? Third one is a fine definition for my use case:

(informal) Suggestive of rape

Of if you need it in a complete sentence: "someone who acts in a manner suggestive of someone who rapes could be described as rapey".

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Obviously it's beyond you to admit you misspoke, but that's okay, I'm going to move on from this part of the conversation now because it's becoming boring and repetitive and I only want to engage with people who are actually interested in the discussion at hand.

Bye Felicia.

Pot-Kettle. It's repetitive because you keep trying to tell me what I intended to say and then telling me it's not what I meant when I clarify. Then you double down and continue to argue I didn't mean what I said I meant. Again, if you are unsure of something, just ask. You assumed my intention through not being familiar with a word, assigned that intent to me and then repeatedly accused me of this stance, despite me clarifying numerous times. Could it perhaps have been you that misspoke, but are so entrenched in being right that you're blind to actual debate and learning? To suggest you're actions here are indicative of someone who wants to engage and discuss with people would be laughable if it wasn't so worrying.

Triceratops Ballet

Floppybits wrote: »

I don't remember a stay safe program, I do remember being warned by my parents about stranger danger and stuff like that.

As for when to do it, me personally I think 10 or 11 is too young, even for girls who are getting periods. For me I wasn't interested really in girls until I was 12 or so, I remember clearly it was around the time I made my confirmation, before that no interest at all. That's why I was saying that age where they are finishing primary school and starting secondary school and the hormones are running wild in both sexes.

apparently stay safe is still a thing!! I really thought it would have been replaced by something more modern! http://www.staysafe.ie/

We had our first big sex ed talk in 6th class, we were taught how to use tampons and pads etc and we did the whole write down a question anonymously and the teacher will read it out. I had no older brothers or sisters and had only been told about sex by my parents and i remember being blown away by the concept of some of the questions my classmates asked. Kids at 12 aren't as naive as we all would hope, and this was back in the 90's before we all had internet access.

KikiLaRue

xckjoo wrote: »

I hate to attack the poster and not the post, but when I'm being accused of supporting rape I think I have to. Apologies in advance to the mods

I have not accused you of supporting rape, that's an utter misrepresentation of anything I've said. You're just careless with the language you use around it.

xckjoo wrote: »

Did you actually read what you posted? Third one is a fine definition for my use case

And the first two are a lot closer to mine. So you repeatedly stating that I didn't understand or was somehow misinterpreting you were wrong. And that's okay. You chose a word that's very, very, very closely associated with rape and then tried to distance it from rape. It's a mistake I'm sure you won't make again in the future.

xckjoo wrote: »

You assumed my intention through not being familiar with a word, assigned that intent to me and then repeatedly accused me of this stance, despite me clarifying numerous times.

I was familiar with the word and it's most common definition is closer to what i understood it to be than what you did. You should choose your words carefully in a conversation about rape. It's not my problem that you didn't. Your initial point does not stand.

xckjoo wrote: »

Could it perhaps have been you that misspoke, but are so entrenched in being right that you're blind to actual debate and learning? To suggest you're actions here are indicative of someone who wants to engage and discuss with people would be laughable if it wasn't so worrying.

I'm managing to have numerous conversations here with people who disagree with me that are on topic. You haven't said a word on topic in your last five posts or so, you've added nothing constructive to the conversation, you're just desperately trying to prove you're right...

Do you have anything to say on topic?

mcmoustache

Omackeral wrote: »

Has a woman ever been convicted of rape in this jurisdiction? Is it possible by our legal system?

I don't think so. Sexual Assault sure but according to our laws, you sort of but not totally need a penis. You don't need a penis to be charged under section four. I'm not aware of any woman being charged here but there was an Irish woman charged in Australia, although that's a different jurisdiction.

From wikipedia:

In Republic of Ireland law, there are two separate offences of rape:

"rape [at common law]", restricted to vaginal penetration by penis
"rape under section 4 [of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 as amended]", for anal or oral penetration by penis, or vaginal penetration by inanimate object
The offences have the same penalty, of life imprisonment, and the same provisions regarding conduct of trials, except that rape under section 4 is an alternative verdict in a rape trial, but not conversely.

The common-law offence was codified by the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981. A statutory definition was introduced by section 2(1) of the 1981 act; as amended it states:

A man commits rape if—

(a) he has sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it, and
(b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it,
and references to rape in this Act and any other enactment shall be construed accordingly.

The act also restricted reference to the alleged victim's past sexual history, and provided anonymity for both parties.Originally, the act referred to "unlawful sexual intercourse"; the word unlawful, intended to preserve the exemption for marital rape, was deleted by the 1990 act.

Section 4 of the 1990 act defines "rape under section 4" as follows:

In this Act "rape under section 4" means a sexual assault that includes—

(a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or
(b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.

xckjoo

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

apparently stay safe is still a thing!! I really thought it would have been replaced by something more modern! http://www.staysafe.ie/

We had our first big sex ed talk in 6th class, we were taught how to use tampons and pads etc and we did the whole write down a question anonymously and the teacher will read it out. I had no older brothers or sisters and had only been told about sex by my parents and i remember being blown away by the concept of some of the questions my classmates asked. Kids at 12 aren't as naive as we all would hope, and this was back in the 90's before we all had internet access.

Sounds like we're a similar vintage. I remember the "no feelings", "bathing suit areas", etc., but not the tampons. Must have been split by gender for those classes. Sure why would boys need to know about that stuff?

You're already talking about sex by that age, but understanding is poor. Even worse when you're a teenage with all the hormones that brings. Understanding of the technical parts is way up, but understanding of how to communicate is awful. I guess the Stay Safe stuff might be sufficient for primary school but it definitely needs to be stepped up for 2nd level and not just focus on the physical.

Lux23

What I find funny is that people tend to make this to be about teaching men about consent, but really women need to learn about it too. Maybe some people think consent can be taken back the next day and they should be educated about how it all works?

KikiLaRue

Lux23 wrote: »

What I find funny is that people tend to make this to be about teaching men about consent, but really women need to learn about it too. Maybe some people think consent can be taken back the next day and they should be educated about how it all works?

Do you have any evidence that this is common?

I've certainly never had sex and then been confused about whether it was consensual the following day.